In re Interest of Sandra I.
A-16-371
| Neb. Ct. App. | Nov 8, 2016Background
- Juvenile court petition alleged Sandra I. was habitually truant between Aug. 12 and Nov. 4, 2015; petition filed Nov. 24, 2015.
- School attendance records showed Sandra missed ~84 days (Aug. 31, 2015–Mar. 28, 2016), ~77 unexcused. Stage letters and a collaborative-plan process are used before truancy filings.
- A collaborative-plan meeting occurred Oct. 23, 2015; school reduced Sandra’s schedule and noted health issues as barriers; mother Terri initialed receipt of a County Attorney/School community-resources referral letter.
- Terri testified she received the resources letter but did not use the website or contact the Truancy Resource Specialist and provided no medical documentation after Oct. 23.
- The juvenile court admitted the County Attorney letter (Exhibit 3) over objections, excluded testimony about website accessibility as irrelevant, and adjudicated Sandra a habitual truant. Sandra appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sandra) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County Attorney complied with § 43-276 referral/notice requirement prior to filing | Letter was too generic; did not specifically refer family to services for health-related absences | County Attorney satisfied statute by providing a broad referral letter plus resource specialist contact and school-based collaborative process | Sufficient evidence that County Attorney made reasonable efforts to refer family to community resources; statute does not require individualized referrals |
| Admissibility/authentication of Exhibit 3 (community-resources letter) | Insufficient foundation to authenticate author signature; hearsay | School official testified it was the form letter given at collaborative meetings; plaintiff’s mother acknowledged receiving the letter | Admission over foundation/hearsay objections was not reversible error; letter was authenticated by testimony and its contents were cumulative |
| Exclusion of testimony about website accessibility (Jared Gavin) | Testimony was relevant to show whether referred resources existed and were usable | Gavin’s testimony was irrelevant because mother never attempted to use resources after receiving the letter | Exclusion proper; testimony irrelevant where family did not try to access resources |
| Sufficiency of evidence for habitual truancy under § 43-247(3)(b) | Absences were due to illness or with mother’s knowledge/permission; insufficient proof of truancy | Records show numerous unexcused absences; mother provided no medical proof or notifications after collaborative plan | Evidence (~76 unexcused days) sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to adjudicate Sandra habitually truant |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Interest of Zanaya W., 291 Neb. 20 (2015) (standard of appellate review in juvenile matters)
- In re Interest of Katrina R., 281 Neb. 907 (2011) (appellate courts reach independent conclusions on legal questions)
- In re Interest of Danajah G., 23 Neb. App. 244 (2015) (statutory language given plain meaning)
- State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500 (2011) (out-of-court statement offered for nonhearsay purpose/verbal act)
- Eisenhart v. Lobb, 11 Neb. App. 124 (2002) (erroneous admission of cumulative evidence is harmless)
- In re Interest of K.S., 216 Neb. 926 (1984) (truancy when absence not excused by school authorities)
- In re Interest of Kevin K., 274 Neb. 678 (2007) (statutory changes can supersede prior common-law propositions)
- In re Interest of Samantha C., 287 Neb. 644 (2014) (unexcused absences can establish juvenile court jurisdiction for truancy)